Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Incorporating universal design (UD) both as a topic of discussion and as a pedagogical approach allows business and professional communication instructors to foreground accessibility in ways that acknowledge the rhetorical situatedness of accessibility. This article offers UD strategies that reimagine accessibility not just as a requirement that accommodates users but as an opportunity to create a rich rhetorical user experience for diverse populations. To illustrate how accessibility can be foregrounded in professional communication curricula, this article details the development of an information design course focused on usability and accessibility.

Keywords

accessibility universal design information design professional communication pedagogy

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bowie

J. L.

(2009).Beyond the universal: The universe of users approach to user-centered design. In Miller-Cochran

S. K.

Rodrigo

R. L.

(Eds.),Rhetorically rethinking usability: Theories, practices, and methodologies(pp.135-166).Cresskill, NJ:Hampton Press.

Boyle

Rivers

N. A.

(2016).A version of access.Technical Communication Quarterly,25,29-47.

Brizee

Sousa

Driscoll

(2012).Writing centers and students with disabilities: The user-centered approach, participatory design, and empirical research as collaborative methodologies.Computers and Composition,29,341-366.

CAST. (2014).What is UDL?Retrieved fromhttp://www.udlcenter.org/aboutudl/whatisudl

Colton

J. S.

Walton

(2015).Disability as insight into social justice pedagogy in technical communication.Journal of Interactive Technology & Pedagogy,8. Retrieved fromhttps://jitp.commons.gc.cuny.edu/disability-as-insight-into-social-justice-pedagogy-in-technical-communication/

Dolmage

(2005).Disability studies pedagogy, usability and universal design.Disability Studies Quarterly,25(4). Retrieved fromhttp://dsq-sds.org/article/view/627/804

Dolmage

(2009).Disability, usability, universal design. In Miller-Cochran

S. K.

Rodrigo

R. L.

(Eds.),Rhetorically rethinking usability: Theories, practices, and methodologies(pp.167-190).Cresskill, NJ:Hampton Press.

Erevelles

(2001).In search of the disabled subject. In Wilson

J. C.

Lewiecki-Wilson

(Eds.),Embodied rhetorics: Disability in language and culture(pp.92-114).Carbondale:Southern Illinois University Press.

Hamraie

(2013).Designing collective access: A feminist disability theory of universal design.Disability Studies Quarterly,33(4). Retrieved fromhttp://dsq-sds.org/article/view/3871/3411

10.

Henry

S. L.

(2007).Just ask: Integrating accessibility throughout design.Madison, WI:ET\Lawton.

11.

Horton

Quesenbery

(2014).A web for everyone: Designing accessible user experiences.Brooklyn, NY:Rosenfeld Media.

12.

Kerschbaum

(2013).Modality. In M. Yergeau et al., Multimodality in motion: Disability and kairotic spaces: Modality. Kairos: A Journal of Rhetoric, Technology, and Pedagogy.Kairos: A Journal of Rhetoric, Technology, and Pedagogy,18(1). Retrieved fromhttp://kairos.technorhetoric.net/18.1/coverweb/yergeau-et-al/pages/mod/index.html

13.

Krug

(2014).Don’t make me think, revisited: A common sense approach to web and mobile usability(3rd ed.).Berkeley, CA:New Riders.

14.

kuiamalynne. (2013,June 11).On mental disability and rhetorical displacement [Video file]. Retrieved fromhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Nt9iafto_w

15.

Ladner

R. E.

Bigham

J. P.

(n.d.).WebAnywhere: A screen reader on the go. Retrieved fromhttps://webinsight.cs.washington.edu/wa

16.

Lidwell

Holden

Butler

(2003).Universal principles of design: 125 ways to enhance usability, influence perception, increase appeal, make better design decisions, and teach through design.Beverly, MA:Rockport.

17.

Lupton

(2014).Beautiful users: Designing for people.New York, NY:Princeton Architectural Press.

18.

Mbipom

(2009).Good visual aesthetics equals good web accessibility.ACM SIGACCESS Accessibility and Computing,93,75-83.

19.

Meiselwitz

Wentz

Lazar

(2010).Universal usability: Past, present, and future.Foundations and Trends in Human–Computer Interaction,3,213-333.

20.

Meloncon

L. K.

(Ed.). (2013).Rhetorical accessability: At the intersection of technical communication and disability studies.Amityville, NY:Baywood.

21.

Newbold

(2014).How to evaluate a website. Retrieved fromhttp://thevisualcommunicationguy.com/2014/08/27/how-to-evaluate-a-website/

22.

Oswal

S. K.

(2013).Exploring accessibility as a potential area of research for technical communication: A modest proposal.Communication Design Quarterly Review,1(4),50-60.

23.

Oswal

S. K.

(2015).Physical and learning disabilities in OWI. In Hewett

B. L.

DePew

(Eds.),Foundational practices of online writing instruction(pp.253-290).Fort Collins, CO:WAC Clearinghouse.

24.

Oswal

S. K.

Meloncon

(2014).Paying attention to accessibility when designing online courses in technical and professional communication.Journal of Business and Technical Communication,28,271-300.

25.

Oswal

S. K.

Meloncon

(2017).Saying no to the checklist: Shifting from an ideology of normalcy to an ideology of inclusion in online writing instruction.WPA: Writing Program Administration,40(3),61-77.

26.

Paletton. (n.d.). Retrieved fromhttp://paletton.com/

27.

Palmeri

(2006).Disability studies, cultural analysis, and the critical practice of technical communication pedagogy.Technical Communication Quarterly,15,49-65.

28.

Pullin

(2009).Design meets disability.Cambridge:MIT Press.

29.

Salvo

M. J.

(2005).Teaching accessibility in the technical communication classroom. In Burnett

R. E.

Kain

D. J.

(Eds.),Effective strategies for teaching with technical communication(pp.235-246).Boston, MA:Thomson Wadsworth.

30.

Sandhu

(2001).An integrated approach to universal design: Towards inclusion of all ages, cultures and diversity. In Preiser

Ostroff

(Eds.),Universal design handbook(pp. 3.3-3.14).New York, NY:McGraw-Hill.

31.

Starkey Hearing Technologies. (n.d.). Retrieved fromhttp://www.starkey.com/

32.

Walters

(2010).Toward an accessible pedagogy: Dis/ability, multimodality, and universal design in the technical communication classroom.Technical Communication Quarterly,19,427-454.

33.

WebAIM. (2016).WAVE: Web accessibility evaluation tool. Retrieved fromhttp://wave.webaim.org/

34.

Williams

(2015).The non-designer’s design book: Design and typographic principles for the visual novice(4th ed.).Berkeley, CA:Peachpit Press.

35.

Williamson

(2012).Getting a grip: Disability in American industrial design of the late twentieth century.Winterthur Portfolio,46,213-235.

36.

Wilson

J. C.

(2000).Making disability visible: How disability studies might transform the medical and science writing classroom.Technical Communication Quarterly,9,149-161.

37.

Yergeau

Brewer Kerschbaum

Oswal

Price

Salvo

Selfe

Howes

(2013).Modality. In M. .Multimodality in motion: Disability and kairotic spaces. Kairos: A Journal of Rhetoric, Technology, and Pedagogy,18(1). Retrieved fromhttp://kairos.technorhetoric.net/18.1/coverweb/yergeau-et-al/pages/mod/index.html

38.

Zdenek

(2011).Which sounds are significant? Towards a rhetoric of closed captioning.Disability Studies Quarterly,31(3). Retrieved fromhttp://dsq-sds.org/article/view/1667/1604

39.

Zdenek

(2015).Reading sounds: Closed-captioned media and popular culture.Chicago, IL:University of Chicago Press.

Foregrounding Accessibility Through (Inclusive) Universal Design in Professional Communication Curricula

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References